Same thoughts here. I hardly ever join >40 servers. Too crowded.
My preference lies between 16 - 32.
Last edited:
SERVER ADMINS: 32 or 48 slots please, not 64!
- Thread starter brain
- Start date
My preference lies between 16 - 32.
How can you get a WW2 experience with 16 players? Why even own a PC when you can play 16 players on a console?
It's sort of analogous to owning a sports car but you only drive it around the block at 15mph.
hockeywarrior
FNG / Fresh Meat
The Battle of Stalingrad itself was characterized by nearly constant small-unit action spread out among the many months it was fought. Obviously there were battles within the larger Battle of Stalingrad that involved massive amounts of troops and huge troop deployments, but also much of the fighting happened on a more constant, smaller scale between pockets of infantry among the rubble. I see nothing wrong with 16 player battles when you look at it in this context, you really NEED a historical excuse
Some of the best games i played had 8 vs 8, 10 vs 10. Good teamplay, communication and coordination, on pubs. On >50 player servers i never had that. Console? No thanks. PC gaming.
To each his own.
Has nothing to do with owning a sports car and driving slow. I own a fast car and like to race a lot, but sometimes i like to drive slow, like when i'm driving in nature, at the beach etc.
Last edited:
The Battle of Stalingrad itself was characterized by nearly constant small-unit action spread out among the many months it was fought. Obviously there were battles within the larger Battle of Stalingrad that involved massive amounts of troops and huge troop deployments, but also much of the fighting happened on a more constant, smaller scale between pockets of infantry among the rubble. I see nothing wrong with 16 player battles when you look at it in this context, you really NEED a historical excuse
Entire regiments and divisions were thrown into the Stalingrad meat grinder. When one was considered combat infective, they would pull it off the line and throw a fresh regiment/division in.
Agreed.... 64 player servers work just fine on my system. I aim at someone, I shoot them and they die.
The amount of players keep the immersion great.... I'm happy with playing with any players between 16 - 64.... no issues for my system.
In regards to servers trying to do more than they should or are capable of doing, I have yet to experience this, so it doesn't seem like much of an issue.
Can't handle 64?
I'm sure there will be a number of servers with only 32 or so.... enjoy, but don't start demanding every server out there to take out 64 player support simply because your computer can't hack it.
Other people can. There will be plenty of servers for all tastes and capabilities.
Last edited:
TWI is also lilkely to produce bigger maps for 64 player servers later on.
The framerate thing is a bit of an issue, as is the hit detection among other issues. I'm sure these will be improved in the future. But in the meantime 32-50 seems about right for the maps we have out at the time.
The framerate thing is a bit of an issue, as is the hit detection among other issues. I'm sure these will be improved in the future. But in the meantime 32-50 seems about right for the maps we have out at the time.
I don't even waste my time looking at anything less than 64 slot server.
Hell i wish it were 64v64 or even better 128v128.
The more the merrier
Hell i wish it were 64v64 or even better 128v128.
The more the merrier
Yeah I only play on 64 player severs... the more the merrier. I don't see any significant loss of framerate or gameplay balance although I have nothing to compare it to
Why would we need to wait for "later on" when the community will be making their own maps?
I dont want to sound like a prick but... usually bad players prefer these absurdly crowded maps, like apartments 64 players, because theres no space for tactics and manouvering, so you're basicaly on the same level as everyone.
16v16 and 8v8 is where the fun is at if your thing is teamplay and skill. If your thing is leftclicking then stick to 64.
16v16 and 8v8 is where the fun is at if your thing is teamplay and skill. If your thing is leftclicking then stick to 64.
That's not what Red Orchestra is about. It's about trying to deliver to you an Eastern Front experience, not some CAL DOD:S/COD look-at-me-being-all-competitve type game play.
Once again, more player slots help give you a huge battle experience that made the Eastern Front such a meat grinder.
One thing I notice, and I'm not pointing fingers here, just commenting in general, but a lot of people who like the tactical shooters like them not because they are more realistic, but because they are slower and rely less on quick reaction times.
These people see some of the features of RO2 and realise they allow players to decide how to play, slow and methodical or fast and brutal, and both styles can work. This means that reaction times are important again, and this throws off their play style. They want to take their time to do stuff, but see the "world" around them rushing and they feel pressured to rush too.
I play both styles, but so far in RO2 I've been finding myself rushing, just to keep up with the crowd. I believe however, that it will get better without modifying the game mechanics. All the old RO1 hands know there was a steep learning curve, but they are forgetting how long it took them to learn how to play a game like this, when they watch people on the servers at the moment. They think these people don't want to play "properly" as opposed to not knowing how to play "properly", if you know what I mean.
Rather than *****ing about it and asking for the game to be changed to chase those guys away, maybe it would be a better idea to start training them. Talk on the servers about tactics and stuff rather than moaning about overpowered SMG's or whatever. When you join a server, specifically ask who else is looking to play as a team and try to get organised - stop waiting for the devs to find some magical way to force people to play the way we all like.
I dunno, it just seems to me that the old hands would rather chase away the new people, rather than encourage them to become old hands too. I guess the FNG factor is kicking in a bit, but it could be seriously counter productive, assuming people like actually having servers to play on that aren't empty.
These people see some of the features of RO2 and realise they allow players to decide how to play, slow and methodical or fast and brutal, and both styles can work. This means that reaction times are important again, and this throws off their play style. They want to take their time to do stuff, but see the "world" around them rushing and they feel pressured to rush too.
I play both styles, but so far in RO2 I've been finding myself rushing, just to keep up with the crowd. I believe however, that it will get better without modifying the game mechanics. All the old RO1 hands know there was a steep learning curve, but they are forgetting how long it took them to learn how to play a game like this, when they watch people on the servers at the moment. They think these people don't want to play "properly" as opposed to not knowing how to play "properly", if you know what I mean.
Rather than *****ing about it and asking for the game to be changed to chase those guys away, maybe it would be a better idea to start training them. Talk on the servers about tactics and stuff rather than moaning about overpowered SMG's or whatever. When you join a server, specifically ask who else is looking to play as a team and try to get organised - stop waiting for the devs to find some magical way to force people to play the way we all like.
I dunno, it just seems to me that the old hands would rather chase away the new people, rather than encourage them to become old hands too. I guess the FNG factor is kicking in a bit, but it could be seriously counter productive, assuming people like actually having servers to play on that aren't empty.
You can have teamplay and skill in a 64 player map, as mentioned before, the only problem here is that most of the maps given to us to try so far have been smaller & closed in maps, thus it's more hectic.... but you can still have tactics & skill.
When the larger, more open maps start coming our way, the 64 player servers will be in their prime.... you'll be able to have more tactics, as well as more area to move around in.
Now take those same larger maps and toss in only 16 odd players and you have an empty, boring map with no real action..... or people capping easily simply because there isn't enough players to cover every area..... then that team goes to take them out and re-cap, but the enemy is gone to go cap what you capped and it just ping pongs back with caps and the odd one or two kills.
16 players on a map like Apartments, even though it's small, suffers the same issues, where there are too many buildings, too many windows, and large cap zones that it's hard for 8 people cover every possible angle, leaving wide open areas for a team to run through without any issues and cap.
And you call that skill and tactics? What skill is involved where you have a clear & empty path to a cap zone because your enemy is covering another cap zone..... or the cap zone you are attacking only has one or two enemies in it?
Wow... real challenging, especially when those players you killed are waiting in spawn for 15 seconds, leaving you an even easier cap.
Indeed.... as an old skool RO'er, I don't prefer to run and gun or just rush around unloading bullets, and even in a 64 player server in a small map, I still prefer to take my time and be precise.... I'll let all the run & gunners do their thing and I'll go MG or Rifleman to provide support from behind. If people don't like the intense fighting, then don't be foolish and jump right into the middle of it all and expect to last very long.... let the clowns do all that work, let them get shot at so the enemy exposes where they are, then take them out & advance forward.... Repeat.
Agreed
Also agreed.... I've had a lot of re-learning to do when I got into the Beta, just as I needed to do the same thing when RO1 came out after the mod.... you can't expect the next version of your fav video game to just keep the exact same as you always expected it to.... that's what other FPS's do, not RO..... they're always adding more to it, changing things up to make it better, etc.
If people want their games to remain the exact same as the older versions they've been playing, except with some fancier graphics and a few new weapons.... I can list you a few other popular games like that you can play.
Last edited:
yeah after going back to all 'medium' settings and 'high' on character detail, as long as i stay in servers with less than 50 people i do much better performance wise. it still lags pretty bad in arty strikes, but not so bad to keep me from playing. definitely happier than i was yesterday, but still not as good as the experience last week b4 the patch.
as far as the 'new guy' thing...hell i've played RO since 2006, and i'm still a FNG on most nights! welcome one and all...let's go!
as far as the 'new guy' thing...hell i've played RO since 2006, and i'm still a FNG on most nights! welcome one and all...let's go!
Why would you bother making this thread? It's a cry for help but it's going to incite wars between those with less people and those for more people. Some maps can handle 64, and other better with lower numbers. Dictating what people do doesn't win wars as Hitler found out.
![[MAGOG]Kruelgor](/data/avatars/s/30/30956.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
I will be renting the largest possible server, whatever that number will be.
Magog Clan will eat your lunch.
Magog Clan will eat your lunch.
Well make sure it has the hardware to run it, otherwise it'll be a piece of crap.